Sharpness
Jan 7, 2018 17:24:03 #
Hank Radt wrote:
I sometimes shoot without my glasses - I'm far-sig... (show quote)
Why don't you set the diopter adjustment to your eye? It makes the viewfinder as sharp as if you had on your glasses.
Jan 7, 2018 18:32:03 #
If your vision meet certain test criteria re: cataracts you will be eligible for a Medicare benefit and be able to afford cataract removal and lens implants. See your opthamalogist. If you do, get ready for much thinner glasses, if any at all.
And get ready to see color in the way you did when you were in your 20s. If you get the proceedure, they will do one eye at a time, a month apart. After the patch comes off compare a white sheet with each eye. I saw how dirty yellow my eyes were seeing things. Good luck.
And get ready to see color in the way you did when you were in your 20s. If you get the proceedure, they will do one eye at a time, a month apart. After the patch comes off compare a white sheet with each eye. I saw how dirty yellow my eyes were seeing things. Good luck.
Jan 7, 2018 20:05:22 #
put a page of a magazine that has some sharp writing on it [ advertising ] against a wall outside in descent light .use a tripod , now take various pictures in auto and manual focus .in manual focus do it at what you think is the right focus point , and slightly before and after .also using a 25 foot measuring tape on the ground , place a stick at 20 feet , take picture of the stick , if you are out of focus , you will see if it is before or after the stick .i manual focus everything and i need 1.75 to read .i dont use glasses with camera , just did adjust the diopter at the eye piece .
Jan 7, 2018 22:48:12 #
I waisted a lot of time, money and frustration blaming my camera, my lens, camera shake, the wind, the sun, darkness.....everything..,.it was my eyes. Get the surgery and your eyes will thank you since they create your vision of what you see through the lens.
Jan 8, 2018 10:02:09 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
As several have mentioned, a single AF point is usually far better than multiple points. With single point, you decide where you want the camera and lens to focus. With multiple points, the camera will usually choose whatever is closest and covered by an active point, focusing upon that. It may or may not be where you wanted it to focus.
Modern autofocus is a real benefit for those of us with aging eyes, eyeglasses, etc. At it's best, AF is FAR faster and MUCH more accurate than I ever was manually focusing... and I was pretty darned good (shooting sports a lot). But, AF needs to be used properly and isn't entirely "automatic". It still needs to be controlled by YOU.
AND... there are different quality lens and camera AF systems. For example, Canon uses three different types of focus drive in their lenses:
"Micro motor" in the most entry-level and inexpensive (micro motor lenses simply aren't marked USM or STM). Micro motor lenses MUST NOT be manually overridden when the AF system is active. They MUST be turned off at the switch or the mechanism will be damaged. Most micro motor lenses have very minimal manual focus rings, so really aren't very conducive to manual override anyway.
"USM" or "ultrasonic motor" lenses are the fastest and best tracking moving subjects. They are also quieter, though not entirely silent. Best for sports photography or other action, but generally not ideal for videography when using AF. USM lenses can be manually overridden at any time without concern.
"STM" or "stepper motor" lenses are noticeably faster than micro motor, but not as fast as USM. They are nearly silent and very smooth operating, so are ideal for videography when it's being done with AF... as well as very good for general purpose photography. STM lenses are also okay to override manually, but they are "fly-by-wire"... their AF operates electro-mechanically... so turning the manual focus ring won't do anything when the lens isn't "powered up".
Canon has recently introduced a new form of "Nano USM" on three lenses. This variation is BOTH fast like USM and smooth/silent like STM. Comparing one lens that's available with both... an EF-S 18-135mm IS... the "Nano" USM focus drive version is rated to be 2X to 4X faster focusing than the STM version (otherwise the lenses appear to be identical, except that the newer USM version of it can be fitted with an optional PZ-E1 Power Zoom module). The other two lenses using "Nano USM" are EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM "II" and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM "II".
Above are Canon examples, but you'll also find similar differences from most lens manufacturers. For example, Tamron has unspecified lenses that probably use micro motor. One of their macro lenses I use is definitely slower focusing (fine for its purpose, though). They also have "USD", which is similar to Canon's USM. Some of their lenses use "PZD" or "piezo" drive... which, I'm not sure, but might be like Canon STM. Nikon AF-S and Sigma HSM are similar to Canon USM. And Nikon AF-P seems similar to Canon STM.
No one has mentioned some other possibilities....
Do you have a "protection" filter on the lens? If so, depending upon the quality of the filter, it may cause "soft" images that might be mistaken for focus problems. Some lenses just don't "play well" with filters... for example the original Canon 100-400mm L "goes soft" with even a high quality filter. Many users of that lens have been shocked how sharp their lens is, when they finally try it without any filter.
Have you cleaned the camera's sensor recently? Over time as stuff gathers on a sensor, that also can reduce resolution to the point that it can effect image sharpness. Self-cleaning sensors help a lot, but stuff still gets on sensors and a cleaning may be needed.
And, are you using high ISO - which inherently have lower resolution - and applying strong noise reduction? That tends to reduce image sharpness.
Finally, are you evaluating sharpness at ridiculously high magnifications on your computer monitor? An image from a modern 24MP APS-C camera displayed "at 100%" on most monitors is like making a 40" x 60" print, then viewing it from only 18 or 20" away. OF COURSE it looks like crap! While it's fine... even beneficial to use high magnifications when retouching images, back off to more reasonable magnifications that are closer to the size the image will actually be used, when evaluating focus accuracy, sharpness, noise. However, even when you do that most computer monitors are nowhere near as sharp as a quality print can be, especially when done on high quality, smooth matte paper.
Hope this helps!
Modern autofocus is a real benefit for those of us with aging eyes, eyeglasses, etc. At it's best, AF is FAR faster and MUCH more accurate than I ever was manually focusing... and I was pretty darned good (shooting sports a lot). But, AF needs to be used properly and isn't entirely "automatic". It still needs to be controlled by YOU.
AND... there are different quality lens and camera AF systems. For example, Canon uses three different types of focus drive in their lenses:
"Micro motor" in the most entry-level and inexpensive (micro motor lenses simply aren't marked USM or STM). Micro motor lenses MUST NOT be manually overridden when the AF system is active. They MUST be turned off at the switch or the mechanism will be damaged. Most micro motor lenses have very minimal manual focus rings, so really aren't very conducive to manual override anyway.
"USM" or "ultrasonic motor" lenses are the fastest and best tracking moving subjects. They are also quieter, though not entirely silent. Best for sports photography or other action, but generally not ideal for videography when using AF. USM lenses can be manually overridden at any time without concern.
"STM" or "stepper motor" lenses are noticeably faster than micro motor, but not as fast as USM. They are nearly silent and very smooth operating, so are ideal for videography when it's being done with AF... as well as very good for general purpose photography. STM lenses are also okay to override manually, but they are "fly-by-wire"... their AF operates electro-mechanically... so turning the manual focus ring won't do anything when the lens isn't "powered up".
Canon has recently introduced a new form of "Nano USM" on three lenses. This variation is BOTH fast like USM and smooth/silent like STM. Comparing one lens that's available with both... an EF-S 18-135mm IS... the "Nano" USM focus drive version is rated to be 2X to 4X faster focusing than the STM version (otherwise the lenses appear to be identical, except that the newer USM version of it can be fitted with an optional PZ-E1 Power Zoom module). The other two lenses using "Nano USM" are EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM "II" and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM "II".
Above are Canon examples, but you'll also find similar differences from most lens manufacturers. For example, Tamron has unspecified lenses that probably use micro motor. One of their macro lenses I use is definitely slower focusing (fine for its purpose, though). They also have "USD", which is similar to Canon's USM. Some of their lenses use "PZD" or "piezo" drive... which, I'm not sure, but might be like Canon STM. Nikon AF-S and Sigma HSM are similar to Canon USM. And Nikon AF-P seems similar to Canon STM.
No one has mentioned some other possibilities....
Do you have a "protection" filter on the lens? If so, depending upon the quality of the filter, it may cause "soft" images that might be mistaken for focus problems. Some lenses just don't "play well" with filters... for example the original Canon 100-400mm L "goes soft" with even a high quality filter. Many users of that lens have been shocked how sharp their lens is, when they finally try it without any filter.
Have you cleaned the camera's sensor recently? Over time as stuff gathers on a sensor, that also can reduce resolution to the point that it can effect image sharpness. Self-cleaning sensors help a lot, but stuff still gets on sensors and a cleaning may be needed.
And, are you using high ISO - which inherently have lower resolution - and applying strong noise reduction? That tends to reduce image sharpness.
Finally, are you evaluating sharpness at ridiculously high magnifications on your computer monitor? An image from a modern 24MP APS-C camera displayed "at 100%" on most monitors is like making a 40" x 60" print, then viewing it from only 18 or 20" away. OF COURSE it looks like crap! While it's fine... even beneficial to use high magnifications when retouching images, back off to more reasonable magnifications that are closer to the size the image will actually be used, when evaluating focus accuracy, sharpness, noise. However, even when you do that most computer monitors are nowhere near as sharp as a quality print can be, especially when done on high quality, smooth matte paper.
Hope this helps!
Jan 8, 2018 10:25:00 #
Jan 8, 2018 11:44:14 #
I was having the same problems. Kept cleaning my glasses because I thought they were dirty. Went for my annual check-up with my Optometrist to check my eyes and she told me nothing has changed except the cataracts were worse. Referred me to an Ophthalmologist and had the cataract surgery. WOW! What a difference. Without any glasses everything looks super sharp and crisp. Yes, I have to wear glasses for reading and computer work but waking up in the morning without having to search for glasses is a real treat. As for photography, I can now use the diopter on my cameras to adjust to a very good sharpness. There are issues with seeing the camera information. Takes getting used to. Still adjusting but loving being able to see. Good luck.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.